MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410122380 · doi:10.24908/pocusj.v10i01.17718

A Cor Triatriatum in a Pediatric Patient

2025· article· en· W4410122380 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tareq Alhaddad, Amr Hamid, Hana Mohsen

Bibliographic record

VenuePOCUS Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCor triatriatumMedicineAsymptomaticPneumoniaPediatricsCardiologySurgeryInternal medicineLeft atriumAtrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cor triatriatum is a rare congenital heart defect, occurring in less than 0.1% of all such cases. It is characterized by a fibrous membrane dividing the atrium into two compartments. While often asymptomatic in infants and children, it can cause symptoms like shortness of breath, fatigue, and malnutrition. Early diagnosis and treatment are crucial to prevent further cardiac complications and ensure normal childhood growth and development. We discuss the case of a 4-year-old girl diagnosed with cor triatriatum, who was admitted to the emergency room exhibiting symptoms of pneumonia and poor weight gain. A point of care ultrasound (POCUS) test revealed a membrane in the left atrium. The child was admitted and treated for pneumonia and then referred for surgical repair of her heart defect. Following surgery, she was discharged home in stable condition. This case emphasizes the importance of POCUS - particularly in resource-limited settings - for early detection and treatment of congenital heart defects in children. It also shows the need for comprehensive assessment of symptoms for timely diagnosis and management of rare cardiac anomalies, such as cor triatriatum.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePOCUS JournalSame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207